Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw:  It is an argument that allows for God as the designer of an autonomous mechanism for complexification (you agree) and expansion (you disagree). How huge is “huge”?  All earlier expansions were around 200cc.
> 
> Our current brain averages 1,200 cc+, so our enlargement of 200 cc is at 20% of the last size, quite a huge addition for a previous one lasting   a couple millions of years
> 
> > dhw: [i]it was the frontal and temporal lobes that expanded (nothing unique in that). What is your next objection?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: Mainly frontal expansion, and the main point of my argument is the ability to conceptualize new concepts there, with help from temporal area with language development putting ideas into words starting roughly 70,000 years ago, 250,000 years after the initial enlargement. Stasis! Temporal lobe has sensory, visual, auditory and some memory coordination uses, not conceptual thought origination! Why do you persist in ignoring specificity of area enlargements?
> > 
> > dhw:  You have just agreed that “[b]advance in a mechanical hunting tool required conceptualization in the frontal lobe[/b]”. Therefore the frontal lobe would also have expanded! You’ve switched your period of stasis from 300,000 years to 250,000 years, but it doesn’t make the slightest difference. Humans build on the advances made by their predecessors, and I am proposing that ALL their successive brains expanded, as concepts became more and more complex. The sapiens expansion of the frontal and temporal lobes would initially have been the response to some new concept, and then, according to you, there were no more major new concepts (hence stasis) till language came along 250,000 years later, which would have resulted in the complexification of the frontal and temporal lobes, as these could not expand any more without causing anatomical problems. What is your objection?
> 
> Your total dismissal of the huge 20% expansion from erectus while at that time life's demands was approximately the same for both species. You won't admit it is over-expansion because that supports my claim God did it, plain and simple.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]If you believed in God as the designer it would make perfect sense.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i] Thank you for at last agreeing that expansion in response (as opposed to anticipation) makes perfect sense.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]What are you smoking to confuse my answer that way?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It was your answer to my comment: “…[i]it makes more sense for brains to expand by implementing new ideas than by anticipating them – as proven by the way in which the modern brain RESPONDS to new challenges and does not change in anticipation of them.[/i]” What does your answer mean, if not that you only need to believe that God designed the mechanism for my statement to make perfect sense? I have never discounted God as the designer.
> 
> My  answer confused you. I haven't changed my interpretation of God's works
> > 
> > 
> > [b]Survival[/b]
> > dhw: […] [i]This discussion began with your usual attempt to denigrate Darwin. In the context of his theory that meeting the need to survive is the purpose of evolutionary change, there is no conflict between his theory and yours.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Without survival, life disappears. It must happen to continue evolution. I'll repeat again: the conflict is in the purpose of 'survival'. It doesn't drive evolution by adaptation, but by God designing new species.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: By survival you therefore mean that as long as there is one living organism, there is life on Earth. Nothing to do with evolution. Of course you can’t have evolution without living organisms, and survival - which means not dying - doesn’t drive evolution! You are messing about with words. What drives evolution is adaptations and innovations whose purpose is to enable organisms to survive, albeit only temporarily. Whether your God designs all the adaptations and innovations makes no difference. If he designs them, it is in order for the organisms to go on living. There is no conflict between the two theories: in both, the purpose of the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolution is to improve chances of survival, as proposed by Darwin.
> 
> In the sense you are interpreting 'survival' you are correct, but it voids m y point that the driving force is God, and therefore survi  val is guaranteed, not a struggle.